DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2, 12, and 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “approximately below the suction device” in claims 2 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately below the suction device” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear whether “approximately below” indicates a physical distance from the bottom of the suction device or a range of degrees for example within 3 feet of the bottom of the suction device or +/- 30 degrees with respect to the bottom of the suction. For examination purposes the term will be interpreted as “below” instead of “approximately below”.
Claims 16-18 are dependent on the canceled claim 15. Claim 15 form the original set of claims was amended to be included into claim 11. For examination purposes Claims 16-18 will be viewed as depending on claim 11.
Claim 6, 12, and 16 recites the limitation "the at least one spring" in line 3 of claim 6, line 2 of claim 12, and line 3 of claim 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the spring as best interpreted was not introduced in claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9, 12, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2021/0260758 A1, hereafter Singh) in view of Wagner et al. (US 2018/0250811 A1, hereafter Wagner).
Regarding Claim 1, Singh discloses a robotic picking device comprising:
A suction device configured to deliver a suction force to enable the suction device to grasp an item (Figure 2: suction cups 202, 204, 206, 208, 210);
a lower portion connected to the suction device (Figure 5: the suction cups on the end effector 504 are the lower portion);
an upper portion (Figure 5: 502 robotic arm is the upper portion, the wrist 506, longitudinal extension 508, swivel joint 510, and the parts of the end effector 504 above the suction cups would be in the middle of the upper and lower portion), wherein the upper portion and lower portion are connected and the lower portion can rotate with respect to the upper portion (Figure 5: the upper and lower portion are connected and the wrist joint 506 is capable of pivoting and rotating the lower portion 504, Paragraph 44); and
at least one pivotable portion (Figure 4: the pivotable portion is the wrist 506, longitudinal extension 508, swivel joint 510 and the end effector 504 as these components can be pivoted during the grasp) between the lower portion and the upper portion and configured to rotate about an axis during the grasp to align the item’s center of mass below the suction device (Figure 5: the wrist joint 506 and swivel joint 510 is capable of rotating and pivoting during the grasp, Paragraph 44, the item’s center of mass would be below the suction cups because the suction cups have picked up the item).
Singh does not disclose the upper portion and lower portion are connected by at least one bearing that allows the lower portion to rotate with respect to the upper portion.
Wagner discloses a suction cup end effector that uses a rotational bearing to connect a lower portion with a suction cup to an upper portion (Figure 7: lower portion 66, upper portion 68, suction cup hole 64, rotational bearing 70, Paragraph 32) for the purpose of allowing the lower portion to rotate freely with respect to the upper portion (Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Singh by including the use of rational bearings disclosed by Wagner onto the longitudinal extension above the suction cups for the purpose of allowing the suction cups to rotate freely with respect to the rest of the end effector.
Regarding Claim 2, Singh in view of Wagner disclose the limitations of claim 1. The combination as applied in claim 1 discloses at least one spring to control the movement of the at least one pivotable portion to align the item’s center of mass at least approximately below the suction device (Singh Figure 5: longitudinal extension, swivel joint 510, end effector 504, Singh Paragraph 44: the longitudinal extension’s linear motion is affected via a spring, the swivel joint and end effector are pivotable portions that the longitudinal extension controls the movement of).
Regarding Claim 6, Singh in view of Wagner disclose the limitations of claim 1. The combination as applied in claim 1 does not explicitly disclose a channel a channel operably positioned between the upper portion and the lower portion, wherein the channel is configured to position the at least one spring to enable movement of the at least one pivotable portion to align the item’s center of mass below the suction device.
Wagner discloses a suction cup end effector that uses a channel between a suction cup and shaft (Paragraph 24: the shaft can contain a vacuum source, Figures 2 and 3: shaft 24, Figure 7: there must be a channel between the upper portion 68 and lower portion 66 for the vacuum to reach the suction cup hole 64) with a vacuum source for the purpose of providing a vacuum to the end effector (Paragraph 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination as applied in claim 1 by including the channel from longitudinal extension and suction cups and placing a vacuum source in the longitudinal extension as disclosed by Wagner for the purpose of providing a vacuum to the end effector.
Regarding Claim 7, Singh in view of Wagner disclose the limitations of claim 1. The combination as applied in claim 1 does not explicitly disclose the suction force is directed through at least one bearing.
Wagner discloses a suction cup end effector that uses a channel between a suction cup and shaft (Paragraph 24: the shaft can contain a vacuum source, Figures 2 and 3: shaft 24, Figure 7: there must be a channel between the upper portion 68 and lower portion 66 for the vacuum to reach the suction cup hole 64 and the vacuum would also be directed through the bearing 70) with a vacuum source for the purpose of providing a vacuum to the end effector (Paragraph 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination as applied in claim 1 by including the channel from longitudinal extension and suction cups and placing a vacuum source in the longitudinal extension as disclosed by Wagner for the purpose of providing a vacuum to the end effector (The suction force would be directed though the bearing that is above the suction cups).
Regarding Claim 9, Singh in view of Wagner disclose the limitations of claim 1. The combination as applied in claim 1 discloses at least one pivotable portion is configured to rotate as the center of mass of the item changes position with respect to the suction device (Singh Paragraph 44: the wrist joint has two or more degrees of freedom and the swivel joint is also capable of moving based on the center of mass of the item, Singh Figure 5: wrist joint 506, swivel join 510).
Regarding Claim 11, Singh discloses a method of operating a robot picking device, the method comprising:
positioning a suction device with respect to an item to be grasped (Figure 7: grasp generator module 704 determines the grasp position of the suction cups that are later executed, Paragraph 53);
generating a suction force to enable the suction device to grasp the item (Paragraph 53: the suction cup grasp is executed); and
enabling the suction device to rotate via at least one pivotable portion during the grasp to align the item’s center of mass below the suction device (Figure 5: the device is capable of performing the rotations through the wrist joint 506 and swivel joint 510, Paragraph 44, Figure 8: the anti-sway control system would keep the center of mass below the suction device); and
enabling a lower portion to rotate with respect to an upper portion, wherein the upper portion (Paragraph 44, Figure 5: the robotic arm 502 is the upper portion, the suction cups are the lower portion, the wrist 506, longitudinal extension 508, swivel joint 510, and the parts of the end effector 504 above the suction cups would be in the middle of the upper and lower portion).
Singh does not disclose the lower portion are connected by at least one bearing that allows the lower portion to rotate with respect to the upper portion.
Wagner discloses a suction cup end effector that uses a rotational bearing to connect a lower portion with a suction cup to an upper portion (Figure 7: lower portion 66, upper portion 68, suction cup hole 64, rotational bearing 70, Paragraph 32) for the purpose of allowing the lower portion to rotate freely with respect to the upper portion (Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Singh by including the use of rational bearings disclosed by Wagner onto the longitudinal extension above the suction cups for the purpose of allowing the suction cups to rotate freely with respect to the rest of the end effector.
Regarding Claim 12, Singh in view of Wagner disclose the limitations of claim 11. The combination as applied in claim 11 discloses applying a spring force via the at least one spring to control movement of the at least one pivotable portion to align the item’s center of mass at least approximately below the suction device (Singh Figure 5: longitudinal extension, swivel joint 510, end effector 504, Singh Paragraph 44: the longitudinal extension’s linear motion is affected via a spring, the swivel joint and end effector are pivotable portions that the longitudinal extension controls the movement of).
Regarding Claim 16, Singh in view of Wagner disclose the limitations of claim 11. The combination as applied in claim 11 disclose a curved portion operably positioned between the upper portion and the lower portion (Singh Figure 2: the end effector has multiple curved channels that lead to individual suction cups 202, 204, 208, and 210 that are the lower portion, Singh Paragraph 41) the curved channel being configured to position the at least one spring to enable movement of the at least one pivotable portion to align the item’s center of mass below the suction device (Singh Figure 5: the curved portion is configured in a way that allows the spring inside of the longitudinal extension to enable to movement of at least on pivotable portion, the pivotable portions are the components below the longitudinal extension 508 since the wrist 506 allows these components to pivot, Paragraph 44: longitudinal extension is operated using a spring).
The combination as applied in claim 11 does not disclose a curved channel operably positioned between the upper portion and the lower portion, the curved channel being configured to position the at least one spring to enable movement of the at least one pivotable portion to align the item’s center of mass below the suction device.
Wagner discloses a suction cup end effector that uses a channel between a suction cup and shaft (Paragraph 24: the shaft can contain a vacuum source, Figures 2 and 3: shaft 24, Figure 7: there must be a channel between the upper portion 68 and lower portion 66 for the vacuum to reach the suction cup hole 64) with a vacuum source for the purpose of providing a vacuum to the end effector (Paragraph 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination as applied in claim 11 by including the channel from longitudinal extension and suction cups and placing a vacuum source in the longitudinal extension as disclosed by Wagner for the purpose of providing a vacuum to the end effector.
Regarding Claim 17, Singh in view of Wagner disclose the limitations of claim 11. The combination as applied in claim 11 does not explicitly disclose the suction force is directed through at least one bearing.
Wagner discloses a suction cup end effector that uses a channel between a suction cup and shaft (Paragraph 24: the shaft can contain a vacuum source, Figures 2 and 3: shaft 24, Figure 7: there must be a channel between the upper portion 68 and lower portion 66 for the vacuum to reach the suction cup hole 64 and the vacuum would also be directed through the bearing 70) with a vacuum source for the purpose of providing a vacuum to the end effector (Paragraph 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination as applied in claim 11 by including the channel from longitudinal extension and suction cups and placing a vacuum source in the longitudinal extension as disclosed by Wagner for the purpose of providing a vacuum to the end effector (The suction force would be directed though the bearing that is above the suction cups).
Regarding Claim 19, Singh in view of Wagner disclose the limitations of claim 11. The combination as applied in claim 11 discloses at least one pivotable portion is configured to rotate as the center of mass of the item changes position with respect to the suction device (Singh Paragraph 44: the wrist joint has two or more degrees of freedom and the swivel joint is also capable of moving based on the center of mass of the item, Singh Figure 5: wrist joint 506, swivel join 510).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2021/0260758 A1, hereafter Singh) in view of Wagner et al. (US 2018/0250811 A1, hereafter Wagner) in further view of Innes et al. (US Patent No. 11571723, hereafter Innes).
Regarding Claim 3, Singh in view of Wagner disclose the limitations of claim 1. The combination as applied in claim 1 discloses at least one pivotable portion includes a portion configured to rotate with the upper portion (Singh Figure 5: 510, Singh Paragraph 44).
The combination as applied in claim 1 does not explicitly disclose the at least one pivotable portion includes a hinged portion configured to rotate with respect to the upper portion +/- 90 degrees.
Innes discloses a gathering arm assembly with a hinged portion with linkages configured to rotate with respect to the upper portion +/- 90 degrees (Figure 10: there is a hinged portion at the distal end of the boom 26, Figure 2 linkages 20). The linkages are used for the purpose of increasing the range of motion up to 180 degrees (Column 6 lines 24-25 “a linkage can be incorporated to increase the range of motion up to approximately 180 degrees”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention the combination as applied in claim 1 by including the linkages disclosed by Innes into the swivel joint of Singh for the purpose of increasing the range of motion.
Regarding Claim 4, Singh in view of Wagner in further view of Innes disclose the limitations of claim 3. The combination as applied in claim 3 disclose at least one pivotable portion further includes a rotatable portion to enable the suction device to rotate (Singh Figure 5: wrist joint 506, Paragraph 44).
The combination as applied in claim 3 does not disclose at least one pivotable portion further includes a rotatable portion to enable the suction device to rotate 360 degrees.
Innes discloses a gathering arm assembly that uses bearings for the purpose of allowing 360 degrees of rotation of an end effector (Column 7 Lines 4-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention the combination as applied in claim 1 by including the bearings disclosed by Innes onto the end effector for the purpose of allowing 360 degrees of rotation of the end effector and increasing range of motion.
Regarding Claim 13, Singh in view of Wagner disclose the limitations of claim 11. The combination as applied in claim 11 discloses at least one pivotable portion includes a portion configured to rotate with the upper portion (Singh Figure 5: 510, Singh Paragraph 44).
The combination as applied in claim 11 does not explicitly disclose the at least one pivotable portion includes a hinged portion configured to rotate with respect to the upper portion +/- 90 degrees.
Innes discloses a gathering arm assembly with a hinged portion with linkages configured to rotate with respect to the upper portion +/- 90 degrees (Figure 10: there is a hinged portion at the distal end of the boom 26, Figure 2 linkages 20). The linkages are used for the purpose of increasing the range of motion up to 180 degrees (Column 6 lines 24-25 “a linkage can be incorporated to increase the range of motion up to approximately 180 degrees”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention the combination as applied in claim 11 by including the linkages disclosed by Innes into the swivel joint of Singh for the purpose of increasing the range of motion.
Regarding Claim 14, Singh in view of Wagner in further view of Innes disclose the limitations of claim 13. The combination as applied in claim 13 disclose at least one pivotable portion further includes a rotatable portion to enable the suction device to rotate (Singh Figure 5: wrist joint 506, Paragraph 44).
The combination as applied in claim 13 does not disclose at least one pivotable portion further includes a rotatable portion to enable the suction device to rotate 360 degrees.
Innes discloses a gathering arm assembly that uses bearings for the purpose of allowing 360 degrees of rotation of an end effector (Column 7 Lines 4-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention the combination as applied in claim 11 by including the bearings disclosed by Innes onto the end effector for the purpose of allowing 360 degrees of rotation of the end effector and increasing range of motion.
Claim(s) 8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2021/0260758 A1, hereafter Singh) in view of Wagner et al. (US 2018/0250811 A1, hereafter Wagner) in further view of Haynes et al. (US Patent No. 12571697, hereafter Haynes).
Regarding Claim 8, Singh in view of Wagner disclose the limitations of claim 1. The combination as applied in claim 1 does not disclose a sealing component between the upper and lower portion.
Haynes discloses the use of O-rings to provide a seal in a sealing device for the purpose of providing a seal between components (Paragraph 15 Lines 40-43 “In the embodiment of FIG. 8, a seal is provided between the projection 14 and the restraint 5. For example, one or more O-rings 23 are provided in grooves in the restraint. As illustrated, a dual seal may be provided.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination as applied in claim 1 by using the O-rings disclosed by Haynes between the suction cups and longitudinal extension for the purpose of providing a seal between components (the longitudinal extension is a component between the upper robotic arm portion and lower suction cup portion).
Regarding Claim 18, Singh in view of Wagner disclose the limitations of claim 11. The combination as applied in claim 11 does not disclose a sealing component between the upper and lower portion.
Haynes discloses the use of O-rings to provide a seal in a sealing device for the purpose of providing a seal between components (Paragraph 15 Lines 40-43 “In the embodiment of FIG. 8, a seal is provided between the projection 14 and the restraint 5. For example, one or more O-rings 23 are provided in grooves in the restraint. As illustrated, a dual seal may be provided.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination as applied in claim 11 by using the O-rings disclosed by Haynes between the suction cups and longitudinal extension for the purpose of providing a seal between components (the longitudinal extension is a component between the upper robotic arm portion and lower suction cup portion).
Claim(s) 10, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2021/0260758 A1, hereafter Singh) in view of Wagner et al. (US 2018/0250811 A1, hereafter Wagner) in further view of Muske et al. (US 2022/0258086 A1, hereafter Muske)
Regarding Claim 10, Singh in view of Wagner disclose the limitations of claim 1. The combination as applied in claim 1 does not disclose a filter component for capturing debris resultant from a suction force.
Muske discloses a disposable filter to capture debris resultant from a suction force for use in an airborne extractor system (Paragraph 43, Figure 2C shows the filter 38). Muske also discloses the benefit of using a filter and suction device together is to keep the working air space clear of debris (Paragraph 2 Lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination as applied in claim 1 by using a filter and suction device together as disclosed by Muske and putting the filter in the end effector for the purpose of keeping the working air space clear of debris.
Regarding Claim 20, Singh in view of Wagner disclose the limitations of claim 11. The combination as applied in claim 11 does not disclose at least one filter for capturing debris resultant from the suction force.
Muske discloses a disposable filter to capture debris resultant from a suction force for use in an airborne extractor system (Paragraph 43, Figure 2C shows the filter 38). Muske also discloses the benefit of using a filter and suction device together is to keep the working air space clear of debris (Paragraph 2 Lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination as applied in claim 11 by using a filter and suction device together as disclosed by Muske and putting the filter in the end effector for the purpose of keeping the working air space clear of debris.
Response to Arguments
The amended drawings now include the spring claimed in claims 2, 6, 12, and 16 therefore the drawing objections regarding the spring have been removed. While the term “approximately below” was removed from claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, the term still remains in clams 2 and 12. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for claims 2, 12, and their dependents still remains. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 16-14, and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Colantonio et al. (US 12202128 B1) discloses a rotatable suction cup pick and place machine, Wicks et al. (US 11318620 B2) discloses a pivotable pick and place machine.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN TRAC whose telephone number is (571)272-8528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.K.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights